Powered joint orthosis

A powered device augments a joint function of a human during a gait cycle using a powered actuator that supplies an augmentation torque, an impedance, or both to a joint, and a controller that modulates the augmentation torque, the impedance, and a joint equilibrium according to a phase of the gait cycle to provide at least a biomimetic response. Accordingly, the device is capable of normalizing or augmenting human biomechanical function, responsive to a wearer's activity, regardless of speed and terrain.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to and benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/431,277, filed on Jan. 10, 2011, the entire content of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to lower-extremity orthotic apparatus designed to emulate human biomechanics and to normalize function, components thereof, and methods for controlling the same.

BACKGROUND

Approximately 65% of service members seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan sustain injuries to their extremities. Many of these individuals experience muscle tissue loss and/or nerve injury, resulting in the loss of limb function or substantial reduction thereof. Injuries to the lower leg can be particularly devastating due to the critical importance of the ankle in providing support for body position, and in propelling the body forward economically during common functions such as level-ground walking and the ascent and descent of stairs and slopes.

Increasingly, robotic technology is employed in the treatment of individuals suffering from physical disability, either for the advancement of therapy tools or as permanent assistive devices. An important class of robotic devices provides therapy to the arms of stroke patients. Additionally, lower-extremity robotic devices have been developed for the enhancement of locomotor function. Although decades of research has been conducted in the area of active permanent assistive devices for the treatment of lower-extremity pathology, there devices are not designed to produce a biomimetic response, generally described in terms of joint torque, joint angle, and other related parameters as observed in a human not having substantial muscle tissue injury and not using any device to assist in ambulation. Therefore, the robotic devices usually result in unnatural ambulation and may even cause significant discomfort to the wearer. As such, many commercially available ankle-foot orthoses remain passive and non-adaptive to the wearer even today.

These passive devices cannot adequately address two major complications of anterior muscle weakness, which include slapping of the foot after heel strike (foot slap) and dragging of the toe during swing (toe drag). At heel strike, the foot generally falls uncontrolled to the ground, producing a distinctive slapping noise (foot slap). During mid-swing, toe drag prevents proper limb advancement and increases the risk of tripping. A conventional approach to the treatment of anterior/posterior compartment leg weakness is a mechanical brace called an Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO). Although AFOs may offer some biomechanical benefits, disadvantages still remain. W. E. Carlson, C. L. Vaughar, D. L. Damiano, and M. F. Abel, “Orthotic Management of Gait in Spastic Diplegia,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 76, pp. 219-225, 1997, found that AFOs did not improve gait velocity or stride length in children with cerebral palsy. Still further, J. F. Lehmann, S. M. Condon, B. J. de Lateur, and R. Price, “Gait Abnormalities in Peroneal Nerve Paralysis and Their Corrections by Orthoses: A Biomechanical Study,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 67, pp. 380-386, 1986 June, discovered that although a constant stiffness AFO was able to provide safe toe clearance in drop-foot patients, the device did not reduce the occurrence of slap foot.

Moreover, the passive devices typically do not address a dominant complication of posterior muscle weakness i.e., the lack of late stance powered plantar flexion. Since terminal stance powered plantar flexion is paramount for limiting heel strike losses of the adjacent leg, a patient with weak posterior muscles will likely experience an increase in impact force on the leading leg at heel strike and, consequently, an increase in the metabolic rate of walking. Therefore, there is a need for improved systems and methods of permanent assistive devices for the treatment of lower-extremity pathology.

SUMMARY

In various embodiments, the present invention provides devices and methods for operating/controlling such devices so as to assist patients with anterior and/or posterior compartment leg weakness by eliminating or significantly reducing foot slap and/or foot drop. This is achieved, using a type of device called a PowerFoot Orthosis (PFO); the PFO devices are capable of position, impedance, and non-conservative torque control in both dorsiflexion and plantar flexion directions in accordance with the gait-cycle, terrain (e.g., ground slope and stairs) and walking speed. The PFOs can also augment ankle torque during stance so as to perform the net non-conservative work and to deliver the mechanical power necessary to normalize the augmented ankle mechanics. Thus, the PFO devices can provide at least a biomimetic response and optionally can be used to augment normal biomechanical response. Offering control enhancement for both stance and swing phases, the PFO can be used as a permanent assistive device where actuation, sensing, power, and computation are all packaged within a small, lightweight, autonomous, manufacturable, and high cycle-life package that can readily fit beneath a normal pant leg.

In a laboratory study, a tethered powered ankle-foot orthosis was shown to reduce both foot slap and toe drag in patients with anterior muscle weakness. The PFO can help facilitate the return to physiological function of soldiers or civilians who have experienced incapacitating injuries to their anterior and/or posterior compartment leg musculature, limiting their capacity to walk. In addition to the potential for improved walking speed and ambulation economy, decreased demand on the leading limb in walking may reduce long-term morbidity and promote rapid return to physiological function. The PFO can also assist humans having uninjured anterior and/or posterior compartment leg musculature in activities such as carrying a heavy load over a long distance to enhance their strength and endurance.

In one aspect, embodiments of the invention feature a powered device for augmenting a joint function of a human during a gait cycle. The device includes a powered actuator for supplying an augmentation torque and/or an impedance to a joint, and a controller to modulate the augmentation torque, the impedance, and a joint equilibrium according to a phase of the gait cycle to provide at least a biomimetic response. The controller may be configured to modulate, within the gait cycle, the augmentation torque, the impedance, and the joint equilibrium according to a speed of ambulation, e.g., walking speed, and/or terrain. The powered actuator may include a series-elastic actuator, and the series-elastic actuator may include a transverse-flux motor.

In some embodiments, the device may also include a first sensor to generate a first sensor signal related to terrain and/or speed of ambulation, and the controller may be adapted to kinematically reconstruct a path of the joint within the gait cycle according to the first sensor signal. The device may also include an accelerometer to determine heel strike. The kinematic reconstruction may include computing a pose and an origin of a co-ordinate frame associated with a link connected to the joint and/or another joint proximal to the joint.

In some embodiments, computing the pose includes creating a homogeneous transformation of the co-ordinate frame, and the homogeneous transformation may include a 3×1 vector defining an origin of the co-ordinate frame and a 3×3 matrix comprising unit vectors of the co-ordinate frame. At least one point within the co-ordinate frame may correspond to a link connected to the joint and/or another joint proximal to the joint. In some embodiments, the joint is an ankle joint and a point that corresponds to the link may be a distal end (e.g., the knee joint) and/or a proximal end (e.g., the ankle joint) of a tibia connected to the ankle.

In some embodiments, the controller is adapted to determine a terrain type as one of substantially level surface, sloping surface, and stairs, and the controller may also be adapted to determine an activity according to the terrain type. The activity can be one of ascending stairs, descending stairs, walking on a substantially level surface, walking on a surface sloping up, and walking on a surface sloping down. The device may include a second sensor to provide a second sensor signal related to one or more of a pitch angle, a pitch velocity, an ankle angle, and joint torque, and the controller may be adapted to determine the phase of the gait cycle based at least in part on the second sensor signal.

In some embodiments, the powered actuator includes a motor, and the device further includes a third sensor configured to provide a third sensor signal related to a velocity of the motor. The device may also include a timer to provide a timing signal to the controller, and the controller may be adapted to determine the phase of the gate cycle based at least in part on the timing signal. The joint equilibrium may vary in time during the gait cycle, and the modulation may include modeling the joint equilibrium as a second-order response to a joint-position goal to be achieved prior to a next phase of the gait cycle. The modulation may also include adjusting at least the augmentation torque such that the modeled joint equilibrium is approximately equal to a pre-determined joint equilibrium. The second-order response can be an over-damped response. In some embodiments, a biomimetic response is achieved within the gait cycle. The device may also include a parallel and/or series elastic element for applying a torque to the joint, thereby dorsiflexing the joint. The joint may be an ankle joint.

In some embodiments, the controller is adapted to modulate the augmentation torque according to a positive-force feedback. The augmentation torque may be modulated according to the positive-force feedback in combination with a natural joint torque supplied by the human, such that the combined torque approximates a normal joint torque. The positive-force feedback may be adjusted according to terrain and/or ambulation speed.

In some embodiments, the controller is adapted to modulate the augmentation torque according to scaling factor. The controller may also be adapted to attenuate the augmentation torque according to a protocol. The device may include an external signal to stimulate the actuator. The impedance may be a linear impedance or a non-linear impedance.

In another aspect, embodiments of the invention feature a powered method for augmenting a joint function of a human during a gait cycle. The method includes supplying at least one of an augmentation torque and an impedance to a joint. The method also includes modulating the augmentation torque, the impedance, and a joint equilibrium according to a phase of the gait cycle to provide at least a biomimetic response.

The impedance may include a stiffness component, a damping component, and/or an inertial component. Modulating the impedance may include determining the stiffness component and/or the damping component. In some embodiments, the impedance includes a non-linear impedance, and modulating the impedance may include determining a gain of the non-linear impedance and an exponent of the non-linear impedance.

The phase of the gait cycle may be determined, at least in part, according to a sign of joint angular velocity, joint angular velocity, joint inertial rate, joint acceleration, and/or joint torque. The augmentation torque may be supplied in addition to natural joint torque supplied by the human to achieve a pre-determined total joint torque response. In some embodiments, modulating includes or consists essentially of applying a closed-loop torque control at the joint. The method may also include modeling the joint torque, and determining the phase of the gait cycle based on the joint torque model.

In some embodiments, the method further includes kinematically reconstructing a path of a proximal link connected to the joint and/or another joint proximal to the joint within the gait cycle. The kinematic reconstruction may include determining a terrain type as one of a substantially level surface, a sloping surface, and stairs. The kinematic reconstruction may also include determining an activity according to the terrain type. The activity can be one of ascending stairs, descending stairs, walking on substantially level surface, walking on a surface sloping up, and walking on a surface sloping down.

In some embodiments, the impedance is supplied to the joint during a controlled plantar flexion phase of the gait cycle in order to mitigate foot slap. The augmentation torque, the impedance, and the joint equilibrium may be modulated in order to mitigate foot drop and/or to provide a pre-determined net work according to ambulation speed, terrain, or both.

In some embodiments, the augmentation torque is modulated according to a positive-force feedback. The augmentation torque may be modulated according to the positive-force feedback in combination with a natural joint torque supplied by the human such that the combined torque approximates at least a normal joint torque. The positive-force feedback may include a gain and an exponent, and the gain and/or the exponent may be determined according to a speed of ambulation, terrain or both.

These and other objects, along with advantages and features of the embodiments of the present invention herein disclosed, will become more apparent through reference to the following description, the accompanying drawings, and the claims. Furthermore, it is to be understood that the features of the various embodiments described herein are not mutually exclusive and can exist in various combinations and permutations. As used herein, the term “substantially” means±10% and, in some embodiments, ±5%.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the drawings, like reference characters generally refer to the same parts throughout the different views. Also, the drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention. In the following description, various embodiments of the present invention are described with reference to the following drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 depicts various phases of a human gait cycle;

FIG. 2a schematically illustrates human ankle behavior in a weak plantar flexor case;

FIG. 2b schematically illustrates human ankle behavior in an augmented plantar flexor case, according to one embodiment;

FIG. 3 shows the normalized work performed by a typical ankle during a gait cycle at different walking speeds;

FIGS. 4a and 4b illustrate two PFO devices according to two different embodiments;

FIG. 5 depicts a relationship between ankle torque, ankle angle, and ankle-angle velocity for a typical ankle at different walking speeds;

FIG. 6 depicts a augmentation of ankle torque according to one embodiment;

FIG. 7 schematically illustrates various states of a controller for controlling a PFO device according to one embodiment;

FIG. 8 schematically illustrates operation of the controller of FIG. 7 according to one embodiment;

FIG. 9 illustrates seamless integration of a PFO with a lower leg of a human according to one embodiment;

FIG. 10 depicts kinematic reconstruction by a controller for controlling a PFO according to one embodiment; and

FIGS. 11a and 11b depict ankle and knee paths, respectively, each derived using measurements from an inertial measurement unit, according to one embodiment.

 DESCRIPTION

The entire contents of each of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/157,727 “Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis” filed on Jun. 12, 2008 (Publication No. US2011/0257764 A1) and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/552,013 “Hybrid Terrain-Adaptive Lower-Extremity Systems” filed on Sep. 1, 2009 (Publication No. US2010/0179668 A1) are incorporated herein by reference. FIG. 1 illustrates normal ankle function in each of the four phases of a human gait cycle during level-ground ambulation. In the controlled plantar flexion state (CP) 122 during the stance phase 112, the ankle 102 serves as a linear spring impedance that cushions the foot-strike impact in accordance with the gait speed. In the controlled dorsiflexion state (CD) 124 during stance 112, the ankle 102 behaves as a non-linear spring that stores energy for later release in the powered plantar flexion state (PP) 126. In PP 126, the ankle 102 delivers a reflex response—an uncontrolled release of torque that both lifts and propels the wearer in accordance with gait speed. In the swing phase 114, the ankle 102 applies position control to first reposition the foot 104 after toe-off to achieve ground clearance and then to prepare the foot 104 for the foot strike initiation in the next gait cycle. The repositioning for toe-off and heel strike is generally accomplished through modulation of impedance and joint equilibrium so as to achieve, in the augmented system, the mass-spring-damper dynamics of the human ankle. In the swing phase, the repositioning and heel strike preparation is accomplished through modulation of the impedance and joint equilibrium to model human ankle spring-mass-damper dynamics for the augmented system.

Platform and PFO (described with reference to FIGS. 4a and 4b below) mimic human ankle behavior during the gait cycle—modulating impedance, torque and joint equilibrium in accordance with the gait cycle and speed and, optionally, terrain—and augments the ankle torque of the wearer, employing positive force feedback to mimic the calf muscle-Achilles tendon reflex response, thereby normalizing the ankle response as described below. A time-varying joint equilibrium (e.g., position and/or angle) in conjunction with an impedance (stiffness and damping) mimics the biomechanics. Therefore, a powered biomimetic orthosis (e.g., a PFO)—when worn by a wearer with posterior and/or anterior weakness—may deliver measurable benefits through reduction of leading leg impact force, reduction in metabolic cost-of-transport and increased walking speed.

With reference to FIG. 2a, if a wearer exhibits posterior weakness, the trailing leg 202 typically delivers reduced lifting force 212a at the time that the foot on the leading leg 204 strikes the ground. This deficiency in turn can increase the impact force 214a on the leading leg 204 and the “negative work” contribution during the weight transfer (transition) from the trailing to the leading leg. The body may attempt to adapt by applying additional “transition work” to counteract this negative work contribution, thereby increasing metabolism and reducing the self-selected walking speed. FIG. 2b illustrates that using biologically-inspired Platforms according to the invention, ankle torque is augmented during PP 126, thereby lifting the wearer's center-of-gravity at approximately the time of leading leg 204 impact, thereby reducing the impact force 214b and the negative work contribution. Consequent transition work reduction leads to reduced metabolic cost and an increased self-selected walking speed.

FIG. 3 illustrates that in an intact ankle population, the normalized work performed by the ankle during a gait cycle varies generally linearly with gait speed, as shown by line 302. The dashed line 304 illustrates the deficiency implied by bilateral weakness. As shown by vectors 306, 308, the Platform must perform both positive and negative work to make up for the deficiencies and achieve a biomimetic response. Such work generally varies with gait speed.

FIG. 4a schematically depicts the specifications and illustrates the actuator and control architecture employed to achieve them according to one embodiment of the invention. The Platform 400 is designed to be adapted to the full range of military and civilian personnel through use of a quiet, light-weight and rugged actuator 410. A modular battery 402 with a 2000 step capacity (wearer weighing 70 kg with bilateral deficiency) is employed. It is anticipated that a typical wearer will need to replace this lightweight battery pack between one and two times per day. The actuator 410 is designed so as to deliver at least a full biomimetic torque and angle response to cover a gait speed range from 0-1.75 m/sec. as discussed and shown in FIG. 5. Finally, the Platform 400 employs two embedded wireless interfaces 404. The Bluetooth interface serves as a pathway for PDA-based tuning by clinicians and researchers to normalize the torque response—specifically to program the Platform to deliver Γaugment (described below with reference to FIG. 8) as required in each phase of the gait cycle as shown in FIG. 6. The smart WiFi interface serves as a pathway for researchers to acquire control state variables and sensory feedback from the Platform 400 and to synchronize this telemetry with external biomechanical instrumentation.

As depicted in FIG. 4a, the Platform 400 employs a series-elastic actuator (SEA) 410 to drive the powered orthosis. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,650,704 “Elastic Actuator for Precise Force Control” the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. As shown, a multi-processor control system (State and Actuator Controller) 422 uses feedback from the SEA 410 to deliver the appropriate response in accordance with the phase of the gait cycle and the walking speed and, optionally, according to the terrain and the wearer's activity thereon (e.g., walking upslope or downslope, ascending or descending stairs, etc.). A three-phase brushless motor driver (Motor Driver) 412 interfaces to the State and Actuator Controller 422 to accomplish closed-loop torque control of the SEA 410. An Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) 424, employing a three-axis rate gyro and a three-axis accelerometer, provides feedback to sense state transitions within the gait cycle, to measure gait speed and to discriminate terrain modality. Terrain modality may refer to the type of the terrain such as level and/or sloping ground and stairs and, as such, discrimination of terrain modality may include determining a transition between different terrain types. A WiFi/Bluetooth communication module 404 is employed to interface directly to the State Controller and Actuator Controller 422 to facilitate research data acquisition and PDA-based clinician tuning.

The SEA 410 employs a robust ball-nut and ball-screw mechanism 414 driven by the high-rpm brushless motor 412 through a redundant aramid fiber twin belt transmission 416 to achieve about L1 design life of over five million cycles (i.e., a design whereby 99% of a population survive longer than the reported design life with 95% statistical confidence). The ball-nut 414 of the SEA 410 drives the foot support crank-arm mechanism through a bilateral spring assembly 418 exhibiting a weak stiffness in plantar flexion and a stiffer spring in dorsiflexion. In this application, the bilateral spring 418 is used 1) to store energy in controlled dorsiflexion for later release in the reflex response delivered in powered plantar flexion and 2) to serve as a sensing means for achieving closed-loop torque control of the actuator 410. By accomplishing the former, the peak power of the motor 412, and hence motor size and weight, may be reduced by over 40% compared to an actuator without the spring storage. In the latter, spring 418 displacement is used to estimate and thereby control drive torque in a way that attenuates the effect of friction—enabling a backdrivable means of actuation that mimics biology. Ankle angle sensor 432, motor position sensor 434, and ball-screw position sensor 436 embedded in the actuator 410 are employed to sense the state of the actuator 410 and to provide a basis for controlling the brushless motor 412 and for modulation of the PFO impedance, torque and position in accordance with the phase of the gait cycle and gait speed.

Another PFO device 450 shown in FIG. 4b includes a SEA 452 which includes a motor 454, redundant belt drive and ball nut/screw transmission and an elastic element 456 in series. The motor 454 can be a transverse-flux or other efficient, high-torque motor, optionally eliminating the belt drive for a direct drive system. The elastic element 456 is in communication with a stiff element 458, which is coupled to an elastomer foot support 460. A cuff 462 that may be adapted for a comfortable fit to a lower-leg portion of a wearer is coupled to the SEA 452. A controller circuitry for controlling the SEA 452 may be mounted on a housing of the SEA 452 and an inertial measurement unit may be mounted on the cuff 462. A parallel elastic element 464 is coupled to the cuff 462 and the elastomer 460 anterior of the ankle pivot joint 466, in opposition to the SEA 452 and element 458 disposed posterior of the joint 466.

A biomimetic response can be described in terms of various parameters such as joint torque, joint power, joint angle, etc., and other related parameters such as net work. These parameters generally vary with walking speed. Therefore, relationships between joint power and walking speed, net work and walking speed, etc., individually or in combination, generally provide a projection of a biomimetic response. In FIG. 5, chart 502a depicts representative ankle torque and ankle angle, and chart 502b depicts representative ankle torque and ankle-angle velocity of a typical ankle at a walking speed of about 0.75 m/sec. Similarly, charts 504a, 504b depict representative ankle torque and ankle angle, and ankle torque and ankle-angle velocity, respectively, of a typical ankle at a walking speed of about 1.25 m/sec. Charts 506a, 506b depict representative ankle torque and ankle angle, and ankle torque and ankle-angle velocity, respectively, of a typical ankle at a walking speed of about 1.75 m/sec. In each of these charts, a transition from data-point 1 to data-point 2 corresponds to the CP state, a transition from data-point 2 to data-point 3 corresponds to the CD state, a transition from data-point 3 to data-point 4 corresponds to the PP state, and a transition from data-point 4 back to data-point 1 corresponds to the swing phase.

With reference to FIG. 6, the portion 602 of the ankle-torque with respect to ankle-angle curve 600 corresponds to the CP phase of a wearer whose joint (e.g., ankle, knee, etc.) function is diminished so as to exhibit bilateral weakness. The portion 604 corresponds to the CD phase of the curve 600, and the portion 606 corresponds to the PP phase of the curve 600. A desired biomimetic response is depicted by the curve 610. In order to achieve such a response, an augmentation torque, Γaugment 612 may be supplied to the joint (e.g., ankle, knee, etc.). The Platform 400 and/or the PFO 450 described above can be controlled as described below with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, so as to provide the augmentation torque Γaugment 612 such that a desired biomimetic response 610 according to the wearer's walking speed (e.g., as shown in FIG. 5) can be achieved.

With reference to FIG. 7, the biologically-inspired state machine 700 that substantially implements various joint functionalities described with reference to FIG. 1 includes a Controlled Plantar Flexion State 702. The Platform 400 or PFO 450 applies a linear spring and damping impedance in accordance with the walking speed based on:
τmotor=−kcp(θ−θ0)−bcp({dot over (β)}motor−{dot over (β)}motor0)
{dot over (β)}=J−1(θ){dot over (θ)};kcp=kcp({dot over (s)});bcp=bcp({dot over (s)})

where

    • τmotor is the commanded SEA motor torque;
    • θ is the ankle angle;
    • βmotor is the motor angle corresponding to the ankle angle;
    • {dot over (s)} is the estimated gait speed at foot-strike estimated by the IMU; and
    • J is the Jacobian that relates motor speed, dβ/dt to dθ/dt as above assuming no spring deflection. The Jacobian captures the non-linear relationship arising from the actuator-joint linkage kinematics.
      The mass of the motor 454 can provide an inertial component in addition to the linear spring and/or damping components.

Transition into this state 702 is accomplished by sensing by the IMU 424 the distinctive vibration that typically occurs when the foot strikes the ground. The impedance of the joint may be configured and scaled so as to prevent foot slap in accordance with walking speed and the response needed to normalize the augmented response of the wearer.

Transition into the Controlled Dorsiflexion State 704 is accomplished when the ankle angle velocity detected by the IMU 424 and/or the ankle sensor 432 switches positive, typically when the foot-flat condition is achieved. In this state 704, a reflex response is achieved through non-linear positive feedback, as defined in the relation:

τ motor = P ff ⁡ ( s . ) ⁢ ( Γ SEA + Γ CD ⁢ ⁢ wearer Γ 0 ) N ⁡ ( s . )
ΓC Dwearer=ΓC Dwearer(θ)

In this, the reflex/positive-feedback gain Pf f({dot over (s)}) and the exponent (non-linear spring) N({dot over (s)}) are both functions of the estimated gait speed at foot-flat. Γ0 is a normalizing torque comparable to the maximum torque in dorsiflexion at the self-selected walking speed. ΓSEA is the torque in the series spring. A “hard stop” spring model, ΓC Dwearer(θ), is used to model the wearer torque response at extremes of dorsiflexion (θ>0) so that at least a biomimetic response can be achieved. In the equations above, functions of velocity can, by those proficient in the art, be extended to include terrain activity, including slope and stair. Generally, ascent of slope and stair will require higher positive force feedback gain and lower exponent. Descent of slope and stair will generally require lower gain and higher exponent. Ascent of slopes will generally require lower CP stiffness while descent of slopes will generally require higher damping.

Transition into the Powered Plantar Flexion State 706 is accomplished when the ankle angle velocity switches negative. The reflex response is augmented by a “tail spring” (e.g., elastic element 456) to drive full plantar flexion of the ankle per the relation:

τ motor = P ff ⁡ ( s . ) ⁢ ( Γ SEA + Γ CD ⁢ ⁢ wearer Γ 0 ) N ⁡ ( s . ) - k pp ⁡ ( s . ) ⁢ ( θ - θ 0 pp )

where θ0pp is the desired equilibrium state of the ankle in plantar flexion.

    • Pf f({dot over (s)}), kpp, and kcd can be functions of terrain modality, as described above to reduce the net non-conservative work when going downslope, descending stairs, etc. and to increase the net non-conservative work when going upslope, ascending stairs, etc.

Transition into Early Swing State 708 occurs when the detected SEA 410 torque, FSEA, approaches a programmable percentage of peak torque, generally a small percentage of the peak torque indicating that the toe is off or nearly off the ground. In this state 708, position control (impedance control with an over-damped joint equilibrium trajectory) is employed to achieve proper ground clearance through use of an organically-derived trajectory, θ0(t) that smoothly transitions to a goal position, θgoal=0 to simulate an overdamped inertia-spring-damper mechanical response.

Transition into Late Swing State 710 occurs when the IMU 424 detects a negative, vertical Cartesian (world-frame referenced) velocity, WVz. In this state, position control is again used but with a smooth trajectory that converges to a time-varying goal point, θgoal, that is a function of gait speed and terrain slope, each estimated by the IMU 424. The impedance (stiffness and damping) applied to position and velocity errors referenced to the trajectory (equilibrium) θ0(t) is set in accordance with gait speed and terrain angle. In the case of stair descent, the equilibrium angle may be set to a plantar flexed position and impedance can be heavily damped impedance to absorb energy in toe-strike.

FIG. 8 illustrates how the Platform 400 or PFO 450 can augment the torque of the wearer to achieve a normalized biomimetic response. In other embodiments, the Platform 400 or PFO 450 can augment the torque of the wearer to achieve a response that can enable a wearer who does not have a diminished natural joint function to perform activities such as walking or running a long distance, carrying a heavy load, etc. The state machine 700 modulates the SEA 410 impedance, reflex and position control response in accordance with gait speed and terrain modality inputs from the IMU 424. The SEA control internally computes the normalized biomimetic torque, Γ*, in each state of the gait cycle. State-specific attenuation, set initially by the clinician, then scales Γ* and drives the SEA 410 to deliver just the right torque, Γaugment, to add to the wearer torque response, Γwearer, to approximate Γ*, the desired normalized biomimetic response.

Seamless integration of the Platform 400 or PFO 450 onto a wearer can be important to ensure that the PFO-supplied torque is coupled efficiently. To achieve widespread utility of the wearable robotic technology described herein, a process is developed for custom manufacturing a cuff and foot assembly 902 shown in FIG. 9 that may conform/couple directly to the lower extremity of the wearer. For each wearer 3-D scanning tools measure those body surfaces that integrate with the Platform 400 or PFO 450. From these surface measurements, a direct-write process can print lightweight titanium or carbon-fiber forms that can be functionalized through heat treatment to create the scaffold upon which a custom 3-D printed elastomer 904, with spatially-varying durometer, can be bonded to achieve the desired custom integration.

In some embodiments, the State and Actuator Controller 422 is adapted to kinematically reconstruct a joint path. Such reconstruction can be used to determine the terrain (e.g., whether the terrain is level ground, sloping ground, or stairs), and activity (i.e., whether the wearer is walking on level ground, upslope, or downslope, or walking up or down the stairs). The modulation of the toque, impedance, and joint equilibrium may be based on the terrain and activity as determined via the kinematic reconstruction.

FIG. 10 illustrates a method for determining, via kinematic reconstruction, ankle joint 1000, heel 1012 and toe 1016 paths while using any PFO (e.g., the Platform 400 or the PFO 450) based on the inertial pose of a lower leg member 1020 coupled to the ankle joint 1000, and the angle between the lower leg member 1020 and foot member 1008. Pose is the position and orientation of a coordinate system. The IMU 424 may be coupled to the lower leg member 1020. The IMU 424 may include a three-axis rate gyro for measuring angular rate and a three-axis accelerometer for measuring acceleration. Placing the inertial measurement unit on the lower leg member 1020 collocates the measurement of angular rate and acceleration for all three axes of the lower leg member 1020. The inertial measurement unit 424 provides a six-degree-of-freedom estimate of the lower leg member 1020 pose, inertial (world frame referenced) orientation and ankle-joint 1000 (center of rotation of the ankle-foot) location.

In some embodiments, the lower leg member 1020 pose is used to compute the instantaneous location of the knee joint. By using knowledge of the ankle joint 1000 angle (θ) the instantaneous pose of the bottom of the foot 1008 can be computed, including location of the heel 1012 and toe 1016. This information in turn can be used when the foot member 1008 is flat to measure the terrain angle in the plane defined by the rotational axis of the ankle joint/foot member. Mounting the inertial measurement unit 424 on the lower leg member 1020 has advantages over other potential locations. Unlike if it were mounted on the foot member 1008, the lower leg member 1020 mounting protects against physical abuse and keeps it away from water exposure. Further, it eliminates the cable tether that would otherwise be needed if it were on the foot member 1008—thereby ensuring mechanical and electrical integrity. Finally, the lower leg member 1020 is centrally located within the kinematic chain of a hybrid system facilitating the computation of the thigh and torso pose with a minimum of additional sensors.

The inertial measurement unit 424 can be used to calculate the orientation, anklewO, position, anklewp, and velocity, anklewv, of the PFO (e.g., Platform 400, the PFO 450, etc.) in a ground-referenced world frame. anklewO may be represented by a quaternion or by a 3×3 matrix of unit vectors that define the orientation of the x, y and z axes of the ankle joint in relation to the world frame. The ankle joint 1000 coordinate frame is defined to be positioned at the center of the ankle joint axis of rotation with its orientation tied to the lower leg member 1020. From this central point, the position, velocity and acceleration can be computed. For points of interest in, for example, the foot (e.g., the heel 1012 or toe 1016), a foot member-to-ankle joint orientation transformation, footankleO(θ) is used to derive the position using the following relation:
point-of-interestwp=anklewp+anklewO(γ)footankleO(θ)(footτpoint-of-interest)
where

  foot ankle ⁢ O ⁡ ( γ ) = [ 1 0 0 0 cos ⁡ ( γ ) - sin ⁡ ( γ ) 0 sin ⁡ ( γ ) cos ⁡ ( γ ) ]
where γ is the inertial lower lee member angle, and

  foot ankle ⁢ O ⁡ ( θ ) = [ 1 0 0 0 cos ⁡ ( θ ) - sin ⁡ ( θ ) 0 sin ⁡ ( θ ) cos ⁡ ( θ ) ]
where θ is the ankle joint angle.

In this embodiment, the inertial measurement unit 424, including the three-axis accelerometer and three-axis rate gyro, is located on the forward face at the top of the lower leg member 1020. It is advantageous to remove the effect of scale, drift and cross-coupling on the world-frame orientation, velocity and position estimates introduced by numerical integrations of the accelerometer and rate gyro signals

Inertial navigation systems typically employ a zero-velocity update (ZVUP) periodically by averaging over an extended period of time, usually seconds to minutes. This placement of the inertial measurement unit is almost never stationary in the lower-extremity devices such as a PFO. However, the bottom of the foot is the only stationary location, and then only during the controlled dorsiflexion state of the gait cycle. An exemplary zero-velocity update method, which is not impacted by this limitation, for use with various embodiments of the invention is described further below.

To solve this problem, orientation, velocity and position integration of ankle joint is performed. After digitizing the inertial measurement unit acceleration, IMUa, the ankle joint acceleration (IMUaankle) is derived with the following rigid body dynamic equation:
IMUaankle=IMUa+IMU{right arrow over (ω)}XIMU{right arrow over (ω)}XankleIMU{right arrow over (r)}+{dot over ({right arrow over (ω)})}XankleIMU{right arrow over (r)}
where IMU{right arrow over (ω)} and IMU{right arrow over ({dot over (ω)})} are the vectors of angular rate and angular acceleration, respectively, in the inertial measurement unit frame and X denotes the cross-product.

The relationship is solved anklewO=IMUwO similarly as in the equations above using standard strapdown inertial measurement unit integration methods, in accordance with the following relationships known to one skilled in the art:
anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}=w{circumflex over (Ω)}(w{circumflex over (ω)})anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}
w{circumflex over (v)}ankle=wâankle−[0,0,g]T
w{circumflex over (p)}ankle=w{circumflex over (v)}ankle
footw{circumflex over (Φ)}=anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}footankle{circumflex over (Φ)}=anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}Rotationx({circumflex over (Θ)})
w{circumflex over (v)}heel=w{circumflex over (v)}ankle+w{circumflex over (Ω)}(anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}[{dot over ({circumflex over (Θ)})} 0 0]T)wrheel-ankle
w{circumflex over (v)}toe=w{circumflex over (v)}ankle+w{circumflex over (Ω)}(anklew{circumflex over (Φ)}[{dot over ({circumflex over (Θ)})} 0 0]T)wrtoe-ankle
w{circumflex over (p)}heel=w{circumflex over (p)}ankle+wrheel-ankle
w{circumflex over (p)}toe=w{circumflex over (p)}ankle+wrtoe-ankle
wrheel-ankle=footw{circumflex over (Φ)}foot(rheel−rankle)
wrtoe-ankle=footw{circumflex over (Φ)}foot(rtoe−rankle)

In the equations above, the matrix, {circumflex over (Φ)}, will be used interchangeably with the orientation matrix, IMUwO. The world frame-referenced ankle joint velocity and position are then derived at a point in time after the time of the previous zero-velocity update (i-th zero-velocity update) based on the following:
wvankle(t)=∫ZVUP(i)t(IMUwO)IMUaankledt
wpankle(t)=∫ZVUP(i)t wvankledt
where wpankle(t=ZVUP(i)) is reset to zero for all i.

The six-degree-of-freedom inertial measurement unit (IMU) 424 of the Platform 400 or the PFO 450 is capable of computing the path of the ankle joint and the distal-end of the femur (knee) from which the IMU 424 can discriminate and discern terrain modality—including stairs and slopes. With reference to FIG. 11a, inertially referenced ankle joint paths 1102, Wpankle joint(t), and ankle-velocity-attack-angle 1104, WVankle joint, on stairs and sloping ground can be used to discriminate stair ascent/descent from ascent/descent on sloping ground. The slope, φ, can be estimated as {circumflex over (φ)} in swing using the relation:
{circumflex over (φ)}=tan−1(Wpankle jointz(t),Wpankle jointy)

With reference to FIG. 11b, inertially-referenced knee path shape can be used to detect stair ascent/descent shortly after toe-off—enabling knee impedance and torque response to be configured prior to foot-strike on the stair. The “kink” 1110 in the knee path may signal impending foot strike on sloping ground, enabling a prediction of terrain slope using the ankle joint slope prediction described above with reference to FIG. 11a. Using the joint slope, speed and ankle velocity angle-of-attack, the joint equilibrium and impedance can be adjusted in preparation for the foot strike.

While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. The scope of the invention is thus indicated by the appended claims and all changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are therefore intended to be embraced.

Claims

1. A powered device for augmenting a joint function of a human during a gait cycle, the powered device comprising:

a powered actuator for supplying an augmentation torque and an impedance to a joint; and
a controller programmed to modulate the augmentation torque, the impedance, and a joint equilibrium according to a phase of the gait cycle to provide at least a biomimetic response, wherein the controller is programmed to: compute a normalized biomimetic torque for the phase of the gait cycle, the normalized biomimetic torque according to a speed of ambulation, a terrain, or both a speed of ambulation and a terrain; retrieve a state-specific attenuation factor for the phase of the gait cycle; scale the normalized biomimetic torque based on the state-specific attenuation factor to determine the augmentation torque; and add the augmentation torque to a wearer torque response to approximate the biomimetic response.

2. The device of claim 1, wherein the powered actuator comprises a series-elastic actuator.

3. The device of claim 2, wherein the series-elastic actuator comprises a transverse-flux motor.

4. The device of claim 1, further comprising a first sensor to generate a first sensor signal related to at least one of a terrain and speed of ambulation.

5. The device of claim 4, wherein the controller is adapted to kinematically reconstruct a path of the joint within the gait cycle according to the first sensor signal.

6. The device of claim 5, further comprising an accelerometer to determine heel strike.

7. The device of claim 5, wherein the kinematically reconstructing the path of the joint comprises computing a pose and an origin of a coordinate frame associated with a link connected to at least one of the joint and another joint proximal to the joint.

8. The device of claim 7, wherein computing the pose comprises creating a homogeneous transformation of the coordinate frame.

9. The device of claim 8, wherein the homogeneous transformation comprises:

a 3×1 vector defining an origin of the coordinate frame; and
a 3×3 matrix comprising unit vectors of the coordinate frame.

10. The device of claim 7, wherein at least one point within the coordinate frame corresponds to a link connected to at least one of the joint and another joint proximal to the joint.

11. The device of claim 10, wherein the joint is an ankle joint and the at least one point is at least one of a distal end and a proximal end of a tibia connected to the ankle.

12. The device of claim 5, wherein the controller is adapted to determine a terrain type as one of substantially level surface, sloping surface, and stairs.

13. The device of claim 12, wherein the controller is adapted to determine an activity according to the terrain type, the activity being one of ascending stairs, descending stairs, walking on substantially level surface, walking on a surface sloping up, and walking on a surface sloping down.

14. The device of claim 4, further comprising a second sensor to provide a second sensor signal related to at least one of a pitch angle, a pitch velocity, an ankle angle, and joint torque.

15. The device of claim 14, wherein the controller is adapted to determine the phase of the gait cycle based at least in part on the second sensor signal.

16. The device of claim 14, wherein the powered actuator comprises a motor, and the device further comprises a third sensor configured to provide a third sensor signal related to a velocity of the motor.

17. The device of claim 1, further comprising a timer to provide a timing signal to the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to determine the phase of the gait cycle based at least in part on the timing signal.

18. The device of claim 1, wherein the joint equilibrium varies in time during the gait cycle.

19. The device of claim 18, wherein the controller is further programmed to:

model a joint equilibrium as a second-order response to a joint-position goal to be achieved prior to a next phase of the gait cycle; and
adjust at least the augmentation torque such that the modeled joint equilibrium is approximately equal to a pre-determined joint equilibrium.

20. The device of claim 19, wherein the second-order response is an over-damped response.

21. The device of claim 1, wherein the biomimetic response is achieved within the gait cycle.

22. The device of claim 1, further comprising an elastic element for applying a torque to the joint, thereby dorsiflexing the joint.

23. The device of claim 1, wherein the joint is an ankle joint.

24. The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is adapted to modulate the augmentation torque according to a positive-force feedback.

25. The device of claim 24, wherein the augmentation torque modulated according to the positive-force feedback in combination with a natural joint torque supplied by the human approximates a normal joint torque.

26. The device of claim 24, wherein the positive-force feedback is adjusted according to at least one of terrain and ambulation speed.

27. The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is adapted to modulate the augmentation torque according to a scaling factor.

28. The device of claim 1, further comprising an external signal to stimulate the powered actuator.

29. The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is programmed to modulate the impedance supplied to the joint by the powered actuator, wherein the impedance is one of linear impedance and non-linear impedance.

Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
2489291 November 1949 Henschke at al.
2529968 November 1950 Sartin
3098645 July 1963 Owens
3207497 September 1965 Schoonover
3844279 October 1974 Konvalin
4442390 April 10, 1984 Davis
4463291 July 31, 1984 Usry
4518307 May 21, 1985 Bloch
4532462 July 30, 1985 Washbourn et al.
4546295 October 8, 1985 Wickham et al.
4546296 October 8, 1985 Washbourn et al.
4546297 October 8, 1985 Washbourn et al.
4546298 October 8, 1985 Wickham et al.
4569352 February 11, 1986 Petrofsky et al.
4600357 July 15, 1986 Coules
4657470 April 14, 1987 Clarke et al.
4843921 July 4, 1989 Kremer
4865376 September 12, 1989 Leaver et al.
4872803 October 10, 1989 Asakawa
4909535 March 20, 1990 Clark et al.
4921293 May 1, 1990 Ruoff et al.
4921393 May 1, 1990 Andeen et al.
4923474 May 8, 1990 Klasson et al.
4923475 May 8, 1990 Gosthnian et al.
4964402 October 23, 1990 Grim et al.
4989161 January 29, 1991 Oaki
5012591 May 7, 1991 Asakawa
5049797 September 17, 1991 Phillips
5062673 November 5, 1991 Mimura
5088478 February 18, 1992 Grim
5092902 March 3, 1992 Adams et al.
5112296 May 12, 1992 Beard et al.
5174168 December 29, 1992 Takagi et al.
5181933 January 26, 1993 Phillips
5252102 October 12, 1993 Singer et al.
5294873 March 15, 1994 Seraji
RE34661 July 12, 1994 Grim
5327790 July 12, 1994 Levin et al.
5367790 November 29, 1994 Gamow et al.
5383939 January 24, 1995 James
5405409 April 11, 1995 Knoth
5442270 August 15, 1995 Tetsuaki
5443521 August 22, 1995 Knoth et al.
5456341 October 10, 1995 Garnjost et al.
5458143 October 17, 1995 Herr
5476441 December 19, 1995 Durfee et al.
5502363 March 26, 1996 Tasch et al.
5514185 May 7, 1996 Phillips
5556422 September 17, 1996 Powell, III et al.
5571205 November 5, 1996 James
5643332 July 1, 1997 Stein
5650704 July 22, 1997 Pratt et al.
5662693 September 2, 1997 Johnson et al.
5701686 December 30, 1997 Herr et al.
5718925 February 17, 1998 Kristinsson et al.
5748845 May 5, 1998 Labun et al.
5776205 July 7, 1998 Phillips
5885809 March 23, 1999 Effenberger et al.
5888212 March 30, 1999 Petrofsky et al.
5898948 May 4, 1999 Kelly et al.
5910720 June 8, 1999 Williamson et al.
5932230 August 3, 1999 DeGrate
5971729 October 26, 1999 Kristinsson et al.
5972036 October 26, 1999 Kristinsson et al.
5980435 November 9, 1999 Joutras et al.
6029374 February 29, 2000 Herr et al.
6056712 May 2, 2000 Grim
6067892 May 30, 2000 Erickson
6071313 June 6, 2000 Phillips
6136039 October 24, 2000 Kristinsson et al.
6144385 November 7, 2000 Girard
6202806 March 20, 2001 Sandrin et al.
6223648 May 1, 2001 Erickson
6240797 June 5, 2001 Morishima et al.
6267742 July 31, 2001 Krivosha et al.
6416703 July 9, 2002 Kristinsson et al.
6443993 September 3, 2002 Koniuk
6456884 September 24, 2002 Kenney
6478826 November 12, 2002 Phillips et al.
6485776 November 26, 2002 Janusson et al.
6507757 January 14, 2003 Swain et al.
6511512 January 28, 2003 Phillips et al.
6517503 February 11, 2003 Naft et al.
6589289 July 8, 2003 Ingimarsson
6592539 July 15, 2003 Einarsson et al.
6610101 August 26, 2003 Herr et al.
6626952 September 30, 2003 Janusson et al.
6666796 December 23, 2003 MacCready, Jr.
6706364 March 16, 2004 Janusson et al.
6752774 June 22, 2004 Townsend et al.
6764520 July 20, 2004 Deffenbaugh et al.
6811571 November 2, 2004 Phillips
D503480 March 29, 2005 Ingimundarson et al.
D503802 April 5, 2005 Bjarnason
6887279 May 3, 2005 Phillips et al.
6923834 August 2, 2005 Karason
6936073 August 30, 2005 Karason
6945947 September 20, 2005 Ingimundarson et al.
6966882 November 22, 2005 Horst
6969408 November 29, 2005 Lecomte et al.
6992455 January 31, 2006 Kato et al.
7001563 February 21, 2006 Janusson et al.
7025793 April 11, 2006 Egilsson
7029500 April 18, 2006 Martin
7037283 May 2, 2006 Karason et al.
D523149 June 13, 2006 Bjarnason
7063727 June 20, 2006 Phillips et al.
7077818 July 18, 2006 Ingimundarson et al.
7094058 August 22, 2006 Einarsson
7094212 August 22, 2006 Karason et al.
D527825 September 5, 2006 Ingimundarson et al.
D529180 September 26, 2006 Ingimundarson et al.
7101487 September 5, 2006 Hsu et al.
7105122 September 12, 2006 Karason
7107180 September 12, 2006 Karason
7118601 October 10, 2006 Yasui et al.
7118602 October 10, 2006 Bjarnason
7136722 November 14, 2006 Nakamura et al.
D533280 December 5, 2006 Wyatt et al.
7144429 December 5, 2006 Carstens
7145305 December 5, 2006 Takenaka et al.
7154017 December 26, 2006 Sigurjonsson et al.
7161056 January 9, 2007 Gudnason et al.
7169188 January 30, 2007 Carstens
7169189 January 30, 2007 Bjarnason et al.
7169190 January 30, 2007 Phillips et al.
7198071 April 3, 2007 Bisbee, III et al.
7198610 April 3, 2007 Ingimundarson et al.
7217060 May 15, 2007 Ingimarsson
7220889 May 22, 2007 Sigurjonsson et al.
7223899 May 29, 2007 Sigurjonsson
7227050 June 5, 2007 Sigurjonsson et al.
7230154 June 12, 2007 Sigurjonsson
7235108 June 26, 2007 Carstens
7240876 July 10, 2007 Doubleday et al.
7266910 September 11, 2007 Ingimundarson
7270644 September 18, 2007 Ingimundarson
7279009 October 9, 2007 Herr et al.
7288076 October 30, 2007 Grim et al.
7295892 November 13, 2007 Herr et al.
RE39961 December 25, 2007 Petrofsky et al.
7303538 December 4, 2007 Grim et al.
7304202 December 4, 2007 Sigurjonsson et al.
7311686 December 25, 2007 Iglesias et al.
7313463 December 25, 2007 Herr et al.
D558884 January 1, 2008 Ingimundarson et al.
7335233 February 26, 2008 Hsu et al.
7347877 March 25, 2008 Clausen et al.
D567072 April 22, 2008 Ingimundarson et al.
7371262 May 13, 2008 Lecomte et al.
7377944 May 27, 2008 Janusson et al.
RE40363 June 10, 2008 Grim et al.
7381860 June 3, 2008 Gudnason et al.
7393364 July 1, 2008 Martin
7396975 July 8, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7402721 July 22, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7411109 August 12, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
D576781 September 16, 2008 Chang et al.
D577828 September 30, 2008 Ingimundarson et al.
7423193 September 9, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7427297 September 23, 2008 Patterson et al.
7429253 September 30, 2008 Shimada et al.
7431708 October 7, 2008 Sreeramagiri
7431737 October 7, 2008 Ragnarsdottir et al.
7438843 October 21, 2008 Asgeirsson
7449005 November 11, 2008 Pickering et al.
7455696 November 25, 2008 Bisbee, III et al.
D583956 December 30, 2008 Chang et al.
7459598 December 2, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7465281 December 16, 2008 Grim et al.
7465283 December 16, 2008 Grim et al.
7468471 December 23, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7470830 December 30, 2008 Sigurjonsson et al.
7488349 February 10, 2009 Einarsson
7488864 February 10, 2009 Sigurjonsson et al.
D588753 March 17, 2009 Ingimundarson et al.
7503937 March 17, 2009 Asgeirsson et al.
7513880 April 7, 2009 Ingimundarson et al.
7513881 April 7, 2009 Grim et al.
D592755 May 19, 2009 Chang et al.
D592756 May 19, 2009 Chang et al.
7531006 May 12, 2009 Clausen et al.
7531711 May 12, 2009 Sigurjonsson et al.
7534220 May 19, 2009 Cormier et al.
7544214 June 9, 2009 Gramnas
7549970 June 23, 2009 Tweardy
D596301 July 14, 2009 Campos et al.
7578799 August 25, 2009 Thorsteinsson et al.
7581454 September 1, 2009 Clausen et al.
7597672 October 6, 2009 Kruijsen et al.
7597674 October 6, 2009 Hu et al.
7597675 October 6, 2009 Ingimundarson et al.
7618463 November 17, 2009 Oddsson et al.
7628766 December 8, 2009 Kazerooni
7632315 December 15, 2009 Egilsson
7637957 December 29, 2009 Ragnarsdottir et al.
7637959 December 29, 2009 Clausen et al.
7641700 January 5, 2010 Yasui
7650204 January 19, 2010 Dariush
7662191 February 16, 2010 Asgeirsson
D611322 March 9, 2010 Robertson
7674212 March 9, 2010 Kruijsen et al.
7691154 April 6, 2010 Asgeirsson et al.
7696400 April 13, 2010 Sigurjonsson et al.
7704218 April 27, 2010 Einarsson et al.
D616555 May 25, 2010 Thorgilsdottir et al.
D616556 May 25, 2010 Hu
7713225 May 11, 2010 Ingimundarson et al.
D616996 June 1, 2010 Thorgilsdottir et al.
D616997 June 1, 2010 Thorgilsdottir et al.
D618359 June 22, 2010 Einarsson
7727174 June 1, 2010 Chang et al.
7736394 June 15, 2010 Bedard et al.
7745682 June 29, 2010 Sigurjonsson et al.
D620124 July 20, 2010 Einarsson
7749183 July 6, 2010 Ingimundarson et al.
7749281 July 6, 2010 Egilsson
7762973 July 27, 2010 Einarsson et al.
7771488 August 10, 2010 Asgeirsson et al.
7780741 August 24, 2010 Janusson et al.
7794418 September 14, 2010 Ingimundarson et al.
7794505 September 14, 2010 Clausen et al.
7811333 October 12, 2010 Jonsson et al.
7811334 October 12, 2010 Ragnarsdottir et al.
D627079 November 9, 2010 Robertson
7833181 November 16, 2010 Cormier et al.
7842848 November 30, 2010 Janusson et al.
D628696 December 7, 2010 Robertson
D629115 December 14, 2010 Robertson
7846213 December 7, 2010 Lecomte et al.
7862620 January 4, 2011 Clausen et al.
7863797 January 4, 2011 Calley
7867182 January 11, 2011 Iglesias et al.
7867284 January 11, 2011 Bedard
7867285 January 11, 2011 Clausen et al.
7867286 January 11, 2011 Einarsson
7868511 January 11, 2011 Calley
7879110 February 1, 2011 Phillips
7891258 February 22, 2011 Clausen et al.
7892195 February 22, 2011 Grim et al.
D634438 March 15, 2011 Hu
D634852 March 22, 2011 Hu
7896826 March 1, 2011 Hu et al.
7896827 March 1, 2011 Ingimundarson et al.
7896927 March 1, 2011 Clausen et al.
7909884 March 22, 2011 Egilsson et al.
7910793 March 22, 2011 Sigurjonsson et al.
7914475 March 29, 2011 Wyatt et al.
7918765 April 5, 2011 Kruijsen et al.
D637942 May 17, 2011 Lee et al.
7935068 May 3, 2011 Einarsson
D640380 June 21, 2011 Tweardy et al.
D640381 June 21, 2011 Tweardy et al.
7955398 June 7, 2011 Bedard et al.
7959589 June 14, 2011 Sreeramagiri et al.
D641482 July 12, 2011 Robertson et al.
D641483 July 12, 2011 Robertson et al.
7981068 July 19, 2011 Thorgilsdottir et al.
7985193 July 26, 2011 Thorsteinsson et al.
7985265 July 26, 2011 Moser et al.
D643537 August 16, 2011 Lee
7998221 August 16, 2011 Lecomte et al.
8002724 August 23, 2011 Hu et al.
8007544 August 30, 2011 Jonsson et al.
1022480 September 2011 Clausen at al.
8016781 September 13, 2011 Ingimundarson et al.
8021317 September 20, 2011 Arnold et al.
8025632 September 27, 2011 Einarsson
8025699 September 27, 2011 Lecomte et al.
8026406 September 27, 2011 Janusson et al.
D646394 October 4, 2011 Tweardy et al.
D647622 October 25, 2011 Lee et al.
D647623 October 25, 2011 Thorgilsdottir et al.
D647624 October 25, 2011 Thorgilsdottir et al.
1024593 October 2011 Clausen at al.
8034120 October 11, 2011 Egilsson et al.
8038636 October 18, 2011 Thorgilsdottir et al.
8043244 October 25, 2011 Einarsson et al.
8043245 October 25, 2011 Campos et al.
8048007 November 1, 2011 Roy
8048013 November 1, 2011 Ingimundarson et al.
8048172 November 1, 2011 Jonsson et al.
8052760 November 8, 2011 Egilsson et al.
8057550 November 15, 2011 Clausen et al.
8202325 June 19, 2012 Albrecht-Laatsch et al.
20010029400 October 11, 2001 Deffenbaugh et al.
20020052663 May 2, 2002 Herr et al.
20020092724 July 18, 2002 Koleda
20020138153 September 26, 2002 Koniuk
20030093021 May 15, 2003 Goffer
20030125814 July 3, 2003 Paasivaara et al.
20030139783 July 24, 2003 Kilgore et al.
20030163206 August 28, 2003 Yasui et al.
20030195439 October 16, 2003 Caselnova
20040039454 February 26, 2004 Herr et al.
20040049290 March 11, 2004 Bedard
20040054423 March 18, 2004 Martin
20040064195 April 1, 2004 Herr
20040088025 May 6, 2004 Gesotti
20040181118 September 16, 2004 Kochamba
20050049652 March 3, 2005 Tong
20050059908 March 17, 2005 Bogert
20050070834 March 31, 2005 Herr et al.
20050085948 April 21, 2005 Herr et al.
20050155444 July 21, 2005 Otaki et al.
20060004307 January 5, 2006 Horst
20060069448 March 30, 2006 Yasui
20060094989 May 4, 2006 Scott et al.
20060135883 June 22, 2006 Jonsson et al.
20060173552 August 3, 2006 Roy
20060224246 October 5, 2006 Clausen et al.
20060249315 November 9, 2006 Herr et al.
20060258967 November 16, 2006 Fujil et al.
20060276728 December 7, 2006 Ashihara et al.
20070016329 January 18, 2007 Herr et al.
20070043449 February 22, 2007 Herr et al.
20070123997 May 31, 2007 Herr et al.
20070162152 July 12, 2007 Herr et al.
20080114272 May 15, 2008 Herr et al.
20080155444 June 26, 2008 Pannese et al.
20090030530 January 29, 2009 Martin
20090171469 July 2, 2009 Thorsteinsson et al.
20090222105 September 3, 2009 Clausen
20100025409 February 4, 2010 Hunter
20100114329 May 6, 2010 Casler et al.
20100179668 July 15, 2010 Herr et al.
20100312363 December 9, 2010 Herr et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
1393866 March 2004 EP
WO-03068453 August 2003 WO
WO-2004017872 March 2004 WO
WO-2004019832 March 2004 WO
WO-2006110895 October 2006 WO
WO-2009082249 July 2009 WO
WO-2010025409 March 2010 WO
WO-2010027968 March 2010 WO
WO 2010/048928 May 2010 WO
Other references
  • Abbas J. and Chizeck H., “Neural Network Control of Functional Neuromuscular Stimulation Systems: Computer Simulation Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 42, No. 1, Nov. 1995, pp. 1117-1127.
  • Abul-haj, C. and Hogan, N., “Functional assessment of control systems for cybernetic elbow prostheses. Part I, Part II,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 37, No. 11, Nov. 1990, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1025-1047.
  • Akazawa, K., et. al, “Biomimetic EMG prosthesis—hand,” Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 2, Oct. 1996, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 535-536.
  • Aminian, “Estimation of Speed and Incline of Walking Using Neural Network,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44, No. 3, Jun. 1995, pp. 743-746.
  • Anderson, F. and Pandy M., “Dynamic optimization of human walking,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 123, Oct. 2001, pp. 381-390.
  • Andrews, et al., “Hybrid FES Orthosis incorporating closed loop control and sensory feedback,” J. Biomed Eng., vol. 10, Apr. 1988, pp. 189-195.
  • Arakawa, T. and Fukuda, T., “Natural motion generation of biped locomotion robot using hierarchical trajectory generation method consisting of GA, EP layers,” Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 1997, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 211-216.
  • Au., et. al., “Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis for the Improvement of Amputee Ambulation,” Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, Aug. 2007, Lyon, France, pp. 3020-3026.
  • Au, S., “An EMG-position controlled system for an active ankle-foot prosthesis: an initial experimental study,” Proc. of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Jul. 2005, Chicago, IL, pp. 375-379.
  • Au, S. and Herr H., “Initial experimental study on dynamic interaction between an amputee and a powered ankle-foot prosthesis,” Workshop on Dynamic Walking: Mechanics and Control of Human and Robot Locomotion, May 2006, Ann Arbor, MI, p. 1.
  • Au, S., et al. “An ankle-foot emulation system for the study of human walking biomechanics,” Proc. of the 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, May 2006, Orlando, FL, pp. 2939-2945.
  • Au, S., et. al., “Biomechanical design of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis,” Proc. of the 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, Jun. 2007, Noordwijk, Netherlands, pp. 298-303.
  • Au, S., et. al., “Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits,” Neural Networks, vol. 21, No. 4, Mar. 2008, pp. 654-666.
  • Au, S., et. al., “Powered Ankle-foot Prosthesis Improves Walking Metabolic Economy,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 25, No. 1, Feb. 2009, pp. 51-66.
  • Barth, D., et. al., “Gait analysis and energy cost of below-knee amputees wearing six different prosthetic feet,” Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 4, No. 2, Winter, 1992, pp. 63-75.
  • Baten, et al., “Inertial Sensing in Ambulatory back load Estimation,” 18 Annual International Conferences of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Amsterdam 1996, pp. 497-498.
  • Bateni, H. and Olney S., “Kinematic and kinetic variations of below-knee amputee gait,” Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 14, No. 1, Mar. 2002, pp. 2-13.
  • Blaya, J. and Herr, H, “Adaptive control of a variable-impedance ankle-foot orthosis to assist drop-foot gait,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 12, No. 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 24-31.
  • Blaya, J.A., “Force-Controllable Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) to Assist Drop Foot Gait,” submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Feb. 2003). 88 pages.
  • Blickhan, R., “The spring-mass model for running and hopping,” J of Biomech. 22, Feb. 1989, Great Britain, pp. 1217-1227.
  • Bortz, “A New Mathematical Formulation for Strapdown Inertial Navigation,” IEEE Transactions of Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-7, No. 1, Jan. 1971, p. 61-66.
  • Brockway, J., “Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man,” Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition, vol. 41, Nov. 1987, pp. 463-471.
  • Brown, R., “On the nature of the fundamental activity of the nervous centres: together with an analysis of the conditioning of rhythmic activity in progression, and a theory of the evolution of function in the nervous system,” J Physiol, vol. 48, No. 1, Mar. 1914, pp. 18-46.
  • Chang, et al., Ischemic Colitis and Complications of Constipation Associated with the use of Alosetron Under a Risk Management Plan: Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Incidences The Americal Journal of Gastronenterology, vol. 105, No. 4, Apr. 2010, pp. 866-875.
  • Chu, A., Kazerooni, H. and Zoss, A., “On the Biomimetic Design of the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX),” Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2005, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 4356-4363.
  • Colborne, G. R., S. Naumann, P. E. Langmuir, and D. Berbrayer, “Analysis of mechanical and metabolic factors in the gait of congenital below knee amputees,” Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 92, pp. 272-278, Oct. 1992.
  • Collins, et al., “Controlled Energy Storage and Return Prosthesis Reduces Metabolic cost of Walking,” ASB 29th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, Jul. 31-Aug. 5, 2005, 1 page.
  • Collins, et al., “Supporting Online Material for Efficient bipedal robots based on passivedynamic walkers,” Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Feb. 2005, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1-8.
  • Crago P., et. al., “New Control Strategies for neuroprosthetic systems,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 33, No. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 158-172.
  • Daley, M.A., Felix, G., Biewener, A. A., 2007. Running stability is enhanced by a proximodistal gradient in joint neuromechanical control. J Exp Bioi 210 (Pt 3), Nov. 2006, pp. 383-394.
  • Dapena, J. and McDonald, C., “Three-dimensional analysis of angular momentum in the hammer throw,” Med. Sci. in Sports Exerc., vol. 21, No. 2, Apr. 1989, pp. 206-220.
  • Dietz, V., “Proprioception and locomotor disorders,” Nat Rev Neurosci, vol. 3, Oct. 2002, pp. 781-790.
  • Dietz, V., “Spinal Cord Pattern Generators for Locomotion,” download Feb 6, 2012, http://www.Clinph-journal.com/article/PIIS1388245703001202/fulltext, 12 pages.
  • Doerschuk, et. al., “Upper extremity limb function discrimination using EMG signal analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. vol. 30., No. 1., Jan. 1983, pp. 18-28.
  • Doke, J., et. al., “Mechanics and energetics of swinging the human leg,” The Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 208, Feb. 2005, pp. 439-445.
  • Dollar, et al., “Lower Extremity Exoskeletions and Active Orthoses: Challenges and State-of-the-Art,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, No. 1, Feb. 2008, 15 pages.
  • Donelan, J., et. al., “Force regulation of ankle extensor muscle activity in freely walking cats,” J Neurophysiol, vol. 101, No. 1, Nov. 2008, pp. 360-371.
  • Donelan, J., et. al., “Mechanical work for step-to-step transitions is a major determinant of the metabolic cost of human walking,” J. Exp. Bioi., vol. 205, Dec. 2002, pp. 3717-3727.
  • Donelan, J., et. al. “Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 35, Jan. 2002, pp. 117-124.
  • Drake, C., “Ankle & Foot Splints or Orthoses,” HemiHelp, Information Sheet 13 Last updated Jun. 2009, 5 pages.
  • Drake, C., “Ankle & Foot Splints or Orthoses (AFOs),” HemiHelp, Last updated Jun. 2009, 8 pages.
  • Eilenberg, M., “A Neuromuscular-Model Based Control Strategy for Powered Ankle-Foot Prostheses,” Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 2009.
  • Ekeberg, 0. and Grillner, S., “Simulations of neuromuscular control in lamprey swimming,” Philos Trans R Soc Land B Bioi Sci, vol. 354, May 1999, pp. 895-902.
  • Ekeberg, 0. and Pearson, K., “Computer simulation of stepping in the hind legs of the cat: an examination of mechanisms regulating the stance-to-swing transition,” J Neurophysiol, vol. 94, No. 6, Jul. 2005, pp. 4256-4268.
  • Endo, K., et. al., “A quasi-passive model of human leg function in level-ground walking,” Proc. of 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2006, Beijing, China, pp. 4935-4939.
  • Eppinger, S. Seering W., “Three dynamic problems in robot force control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 8, No. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 751-758.
  • Esquenazi, A. and DiGiacomo, R., “Rehabilitation After Amputation,” Journ Am Podiatr Med Assoc, vol. 91, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 13-22.
  • Farley, C. and McMahon, T., “Energetics of walking and running: insights from simulated reduced-gravity experiments,” The American Physiological Society, Dec. 1992, pp. 2709-2712.
  • Farry, K. A., et al., “Myoelectric teleoperation of a complex robotic hand,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. vol. 12, No. 5, Oct. 1996, pp. 775-788.
  • Featherstone, R., 1987, “Robot Dynamic Algorithms”, Boston, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 155-172.
  • File, K., et. al., “Design and Control of an Electrically Powered Knee Prosthesis,” Proc. of 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Jun. 2007, pp. 902-905.
  • Flowers, W. “A Man-Interactive Simulator System for Above-Knee Prosthetic Studies,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts of Institute Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering. Jul. 10, 1973.
  • Fod, A., et. al., “Automated Derivation of Primitives for Movements Classification,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 39-54.
  • Frigon, A. and Rossignol, S., “Experiments and models of sensorimotor interactions during locomotion,” Bioi Cybern, vol. 95, No. 6, Nov. 2006, pp. 607-627.
  • Fujita K, et. al., “Joint angle control with command filter for human ankle movement using functional electrical stimulation,” Proc. of IEEE Ninth Annual Conference for the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1987, Boston, MA, pp. 1719-1720.
  • Fukuda, 0. et al., “A human-assisting manipulator teleoperated by EMG signals and arm motions,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. vol. 19, No. 2, Apr. 2003, pp. 210-222.
  • Gates, D., “Characterizing ankle function during stair ascent, descent, and level walking for ankle prosthesis and orthosis design,” Masters thesis, Boston University, 2004, pp. 1-82.
  • Geiritsen, K., et. al., “Direct dynamics simulation of the impact phase in heel-toe running,” J. Biomech., vol. 28, No. 6, Jun. 1995, Great Britain, pp. 661-668.
  • Geyer, H., et. al., “Compliant leg behaviour explains the basic dynamics of walking and running,” Proc. R. Soc. Cond. B 273, Aug. 2006, pp. 2861-2867.
  • Geyer, H., et. al., “Positive force feedback in bouncing gaits?,” Proceedings of Royal Society B—Biological Sciences, vol. 270, No. 1529, Aug. 2003, pp. 2173-2183, 2003.
  • Geyer, H. and Herr H., “A muscle-reflex model that encodes principles of legged mechanics predicts human walking dynamics and muscle activities,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitations Engineering, vol. 18, No. 3, Jun. 2010, pp. 263-273.
  • Ghigliazza, R., et. al., “A simply stabilized running model,” SIAM J. Applied. Dynamical Systems, vol. 2, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 187-218.
  • Godha, el al., “Integrated GPS/INS System for Pedestrian Navigation in a Signal Degraded Environment,” ION GNSS, Sep. 2006, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 1-14.
  • Goswami, A., “Postural stability of biped robots and the foot-rotation indicator (FRI) point,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 18, No. 6, Jun. 1999, pp. 523-533.
  • Goswami, A. and Kallem, V., “Rate of change of angular momentum and balance maintenance of biped robots,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA., pp. 3785-3790.
  • Graupe, D., et al., “A microprocessor system for multifunctional control of upper-limb prostheses via myoelectric signal identification,” IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control. vol. AC-23, vol. 4, Aug. 1978, pp. 538-544.
  • Gregoire, L., and et al, “Role of mono- and bi-articular muscles in explosive movements,” International Journal of Sports Medicine 5, 614-630. Dec. 1984.
  • Grillner, S. and Zangger, P., “On the central generation of locomotion in the low spinal cat,” Exp Brain Res, vol. 34, No. 2, Jan. 1979, pp. 241-261.
  • Grimes, D. L., “An active multi-mode above-knee prosthesis controller,” Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jul. 20, 1979.
  • Gu, W., “The Regulation of Angular Momentum During Human Walking,” Undergraduate Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Physics Department, Jun. 2003, pp. 2-48.
  • Gunther, M., et. al., “Human leg design: optimal axial alignment under constraints,” J. Math. Bioi., vol. 48, Mar. 2004, pp. 623-646.
  • Gunther, M. and Ruder, H., “Synthesis of two-dimensional human walking: a test of the Amodel,” Bioi. Cybern., vol. 89, May 2003, pp. 89-106.
  • Hanafusa et al., “A Robot Hand with Elastic Fingers and Its Application to Assembly Process,” pp. 337-359, Robot Motion, Brady et al., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
  • Hansen, A. H., Childress, D. S., Miff, S.C., Gard, S. A., Mesplay, K. P., “The human ankle during walking: implication for the design of biomimetic ankle prosthesis,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 37, No. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 1467-1474.
  • Hayes et al., “Leg Motion Analysis During Gait by Multiaxial Accelerometry: Theoretical Foundations and Preliminary Validations,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 105, Aug. 1983, pp. 283-289.
  • Heglund, N., “A Simple Design for a Force-Plat to Measure Ground Reaction Forces,” J. Exp. Bioi., vol. 93, Aug. 1981, pp. 333-338.
  • Herr, H. and McMahon, T.,“A trotting horse model,” Int. J. Robotics Res., vol. 19, No. 6, Jun. 2000, pp. 566-581.
  • Herr, H. and Popovic, M., “Angular momentum regulation in human walking,” J. Exp. Bioi., vol. 211, Feb. 2008, pp. 467-481.
  • Herr, H. and Wilkenfeld A., “User-adaptive control of a magnetorheologicalprosthetic knee,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, pp. 42-55.
  • Herr, H., et. al, “A model of scale effects in mammalian quadrupedal running,” J Exp Bioi 205 (Pt 7), Apr. 2002, pp. 959-967.
  • Heyn et al., “The Kinematice of the Swing Phase Obtained from Accelerometer and Gyroscope Measurements,” 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1996, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 463-464.
  • Hill, V., “The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle,” Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, vol. 126, No. 843, Oct. 1938, pp. 136-195.
  • Hirai, K., et al., “The development of Honda humanoid robot,” Proceedings on IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, May 1998, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 1321-1326.
  • Hitt, J., R. Bellman, M. Holgate, T. Sugar, and K. Hollander, “The sparky (spring ankle with regenerative kinetics) projects: Design and analysis of a robotic transtibial prosthesis with regenerative kinetics,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Orlando, Fla., pp. 2939-2945, Sep. 2007.
  • Hof. A., et. al., “Calf muscle moment, work and efficiency in level walking; role of series elasticity,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 16, No. 7, Sep. 1983, pp. 523-537.
  • Hofbaur, M. and Williams, B., “Hybrid Diagnosis with Unknown Behavioral Modes”, Proceedings of the 13.sup.th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX02), May 2002, pp. 1-10.
  • Hofbaur, M. and Williams, B., “Mode Estimation of Probabilistic Hybrid Systems”, HSSC 2002, LNCS 2289, Mar. 25, 2002, pp. 253-266.
  • Hofmann, A., et. al., “A Sliding Controller for Bipedal Balancing Using Integrated Movement of Contact and Non-Contact Limbs,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sep. 2004, Sendai, Japan, pp. 1952-1959.
  • Hofmann, A., et. al., “Robust Execution of Bipedal Walking Tasks from Biomechanical Principles,” Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jan. 2006, 407 pages.
  • Hogan, N and Buerger S., “Impedance and Interaction Control,” Robotics and Automation Handbook, CRC Press, Jun. 2004, pp. 19.1-19.24.
  • Hogan, N. (1976) A review of the methods of processing EMG for use as a proportional control signal. Biomedical Engineering. pp. 81-86.
  • Hogan, N., “Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part I—Theory,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 107, Mar. 1985, pp. 1-7.
  • Hogan, N., “Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part II—Implementation, ” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement , and Control, 107:8-16, (1985).
  • Hogan, N., Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part III—Application, Journal of Dynamics Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107:17-24, (1985).
  • Hogan, N., “Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation,” Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and Laboratory of Manufacturing and Productivity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, pp. 304-313, (Jun. 1984).
  • Hollander, K. W., T. G. Sugar, and D. E. Herring, “Adjustable robotic tendon using a ‘Jack Spring’ .TM.,” Proceedings on IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, pp. 113-118, Jun. 28, 2005.
  • Howard, “Joint and Actuator Design for Enhanced Stability in Robotic Force Control,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sep. 19, 1990.
  • Huang, H. and Chen. C., “Development of a myoelectric discrimination system for a multi-degree prosthetic hand,” Proceeding of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1999, Detroit, MI, pp. 2392-2397.
  • Huang, Q., “Planning walking patterns for a biped robot,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, No. 3, Jun. 2001, pp. 280-289.
  • Hultborn, H., Spinal reflexes, mechanisms and concepts: from Eccles to Lundberg and beyond, Prog Neurobiol, vol. 78, Feb. 2006, pp. 215-232.
  • Ijspeert, A. J., 2008, “Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review,” Neural Netw, vol. 21, No. 4, May 2008, pp. 642-653.
  • Ijspeert, A., et. al., “From swimming to walking with a salamander robot driven by a spinal cord model,” Science, vol. 315, No. 5817, Mar. 2007, pp. 1416-1420.
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2009/055600 mailed Apr. 29, 2010 (23 pages).
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2010/047279 mailed Jan. 19, 2011 (11 pages).
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2011/031105 mailed Oct. 11, 2011 (16 pages).
  • International Search Report for PCT/US2012/020775 mailed Jun. 1, 2012 (6 pages).
  • International Search Report for PCT/US2012/021084 mailed Aug. 1, 2012 (3 pages).
  • International Search Report for PCT/US2012/022217 mailed May 31, 2012 (6 pages).
  • Ivashko, D., et. al, “Modeling the spinal cord neural circuitry controlling cat hindlimb movement during locomotion,” Neurocomputing, vol. 52-54, Mar. 2003, pp. 621-629.
  • Johansson, J., et al., “A clinical comparison of variable damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 84, No. 8, Aug. 2005, pp. 563-575.
  • Johnson, C. and Lorenz R., “Experimental identification of friction and its compensation in precise, position controlled mechanisms,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 28, No. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 1392-1398.
  • Jonic S, et. al., “Three machine learning techniques for automatic determination of rules to control locomotion,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 46, No. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 300-310.
  • Kadaba, M., et. al., “Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking,” J. Orthop. Res., vol. 8, May 1990, pp. 383-392.
  • Kadaba, M., et. al., “Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait,” J. Orthop. Res., vol. 7, Nov. 1989, pp. 849-860.
  • Kajita, K., et. al., “Biped walking on a low friction floor,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2004, Sendai, Japan., pp. 3546-3551.
  • Kajita, S., et. al., “A Hop towards Running Humanoid Biped,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA., pp. 629-635.
  • Kajita, S., et. al., “Resolved Momentum Control: Humanoid Motion Planning based on the Linear and Angular Momentum,” Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2003, Las Vegas, Nev., pp. 1644-1650.
  • Kaneko, K., et al., “Humanoid robot HRP-2,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, La., pp. 1083-1090.
  • Kapti, A. and Yucenur M., “Design and control of an active artificial knee joint,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 41, Apr. 2006, pp. 1477-1485.
  • Katie, D. and Vukobratovic, M., “Survey of intelligent control techniques for humanoid robots,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotics Systems, vol. 37, Jun. 2003, pp. 117-141.
  • Kerrigan, D, et. al., “A refined view of the determinants of gait: significance of heel rise,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab., vol. 81, Aug. 2000, pp. 1077-1080.
  • Kerrigan, D, et. al., “Quantification of pelvic rotation as a determinant of gait,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab., vol. 82, Feb. 2001, pp. 217-220.
  • Khatib, 0., et. al., “Coordination and decentralized cooperation of multiple mobile manipulators,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 13, No. 11, Nov. 1996, pp. 755-764.
  • Khatib, 0., et. al., “Whole body dynamic behavior and control of human-like robots,” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 1, No. 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 29-43.
  • Kidder, et al., “A System for the Analysis of Foot and Ankle Kinematics During Gait,” IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 4, No. 1, Mar. 1996, pp. 25-32.
  • Kim, et al., “Realization of Dynamic Walking for the Humaniod Robot Platform KHR-1,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 749-768, (2004).
  • Kirkwood C, et. al., “Automatic detection of gait events: a case study using inductive learning techniques.,” J Biomed Eng, vol. 11, Nov. 1989, pp. 511-516.
  • Kitayama, I., Nakagawa N, Amemori K, “A microcomputer controlled intelligent A/K prosthesis,” Proceedings of the 7th' World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics, Chicago. Jun. 28, 1992.
  • Klute, et al., Artificial Muscles: Actuators for Lower Limb Prostheses, Abstract in: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the VA rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Feb. 20-22, 2000, p. 107.
  • Klute, et al., “Artificial Muscles: Actuators for Biorobotic Systems,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 21, No. 4, Apr. 2002, pp. 295-309.
  • Klute, et al., “Artificial Tendons: Biomechanical Design Properties for Prosthetic Lower Limbs,” Chicago 2000 World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Chicago on Jul. 24-28, 2000, 4 pages.
  • Klute, et al., Intelligent Transtibial Prostheses with Muscle-Like Actuators,: 2002 American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting: The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Applied, 1 page.
  • Klute, et al., “Lower Limb Prostheses Powered by Muscle-Like Pneumatic Actuator,” Submitted to Oleodinamica e Pneumatica, Publishe Tecniche Nuove, Milamo, Italy, Mar. 15, 2000, 6 pages.
  • Klute, et al., “McKibben Artificial Muscles: Pneumatic Actuators with Biomechanical Intelligence,” IEEE/ASME 1999 International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Atlanta, GA, Sep. 19-22, 1999, pp. 221-226.
  • Klute, et al., “Muscle-Like Pneumatic Actuators for Below-Knee Prostheses,” Actuator2000:7th International Conference on New Actuators, Bremen, Germany on Jun. 9-21, 2000, pp. 289-292.
  • Klute et al., “Powering Lower Limb Prosthestics with Muscle-Like Actuators,” Abstract in: Proceeding of the 1st Annual Meeting of the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, “Enabling Veterans: Meeting the Challenge of Rehabilitation in the Next Millennium,” Washington, D.C., Oct. 1-3, 1998, p. 52.
  • Klute, G., et. al., “Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs adapting to the patient,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 38, No. 3, May 2001, pp. 299-307.
  • Koganezawa, K. and Kato, 1., “Control aspects of artificial leg,” IFAC Control Aspects of Biomedical Engineering, 1987, pp. 71-85.
  • Kondak, K. and Hommel, G., “Control and online computation of stable movement for biped robots,” Proc. of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2003, Las Vegas, Nev., pp. 874-879.
  • Kostov A., et. al., “Machine learning in control of functional electrical stimulation (FES) systems for locomotion,” IEEE Trans on Biomed Eng, vol. 42, No. 6, Jun. 1995, pp. 541-551.
  • Kuo, A., “A simple model of bipedal walking predicts the preferred speed-step length relationship,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 123, Jun. 2001, pp. 264-269.
  • Kuo, A., “Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 124, Feb. 2002, pp. 113-120.
  • LaFortune, “Three-Dimensional Acceleration of the Tibia During Walking and Running,” J. Biomechanics, vol. 24, No. 10, 1991, pp. 877-886.
  • LeBlanc, M. and Dapena, J., “Generation and transfer of angular momentum in the javelin throw,” Presented at the 20th annual meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, Oct. 1996, Atlanta, Ga., pp. 17-19.
  • Li, C., et al. (Jun. 25, 2006) Research and development of the intelligently-controlled prosthetic ankle joint. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Mechatronics and Automation. Luoyang, China, pp. 1114-1119.
  • Liu, X., Low, K. H., Yu, H. Y., Sep. 2004 ‘Development of a Lower Extremity Exoskeleton for Human performance Enhancement’, IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan.
  • Lloyd R. and Cooke C., “Kinetic changes associated with load carriage using two rucksack designs,” Ergonomics, vol. 43, No. 9, Sep. 2000, pp. 1331-1341.
  • Luinge, “Inertial Sensing of Human Movement,” Twente University Press, ISBN 9036518237, 2002, pp. 1-80.
  • Lundberg, A., Oct. 19, 1968. Reflex control of stepping. In: The Nansen memorial lecture V, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 5-42.
  • Macfarlane, P., “Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a flex-foot versus a conventional prosthetic foot,” Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 3, No. 4, Summer, 1991, pp. 150-161.
  • Maganaris, C., “Force-length characteristics of in vivo human skeletal muscle,” Acta Physiol. Scand., vol. 172, Aug. 2001, pp. 279-285.
  • Maganaris, C., “Force-length characteristics of the in vivo human gastrocnemius muscle,” Clin. Anal., vol. 16, May 2003, pp. 215-223.
  • Martens, W.L.J., “Exploring the Information Content and Some Applications of Body Mounted Piezo-Resistive Accelerometers,” in: P.H. Veltink and R.C. van Lummel (eds.), Dynamic Analysis using Body Fixed Sensors, ISBN 90-9007328-0, 1994, pp. 8-11.
  • Maufroy, C., Towards a general neural controller for quadrupedal locomotion, Neural Netw, vol. 21, No. 4, Apr. 2008, pp. 667-681.
  • Mayagoitia R., et al., “Accelerometer and rate gyroscope measurement of kinematics: an inexpensive alternative to optical motion analysis systems,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 35, Apr. 2002, pp. 537-542.
  • McFadyen, B. and Winter, D., “An integrated biomechanical analysis of normal stair ascent and descent,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 21, No. 9, 1988, Great Britain, pp. 733-744.
  • McGeer T., “Passive Dynamic Walking,” International Journal of Robotics, vol. 9, No. 2, May 1988, pp. 62-82.
  • McGeer, T., “Principles of walking and running,” Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology, vol. 11, Ch. 4, Apr. 1992, pp. 113-139.
  • Mcintosh, A., et. al., “Gait dynamics on an inclined walkway,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 39, Sep. 2005, pp. 2491-2502.
  • McMahon, T., “The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed?,” J. of Biomecb., vol. 23, 1990, pp. 65-78.
  • McMahon, T., et. al., “Groucho Running,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 62, No. 6, Jun. 1987, pp. 2326-2337.
  • Minassian, K., et. al., “Human lumbar cord circuitries can be activated by extrinsic tonic input to generate locomotor-like activity,” Hum. Mov. Sci., vol. 26, Mar. 2007, pp. 275-295.
  • Mochon, S., et. al., “Ballistic walking,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 13, Dec. 1980, pp. 49-57.
  • Molen, N., “Energy/speed relation of below-knee amputees walking on motor-driven treadmill,” Int. Z. Angew. Physio, vol. 31, Mar. 1973, pp. 173.
  • Morris, “Accelerometry—A Technique for the Measurement of Human Body Movements,” J. Biomechanics, vol. 6, Nov. 1973, pp. 729-736.
  • Muraoka, T., et. al, “Muscle fiber and tendon length changes in the human vastus lateralis during slow pedaling,” J. Appl. Physiol., vol. 91, Nov. 2001, pp. 2035-2040.
  • Nakagawa A., “Intelligent Knee Mechanism and the Possibility to Apply the Principle to the Other Joints,” Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vo. 20, No. 5, Oct. 1998, pp. 2282-2287.
  • Neal R. and Hinton G., “A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants,” in Michael I. Jordan (editor), Learning in Graphical Models, 1999, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-14.
  • Ng, et al., “Fuzzy Model Identification for Classification of Gait Events in Paraplegics,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 5, No. 4, Nov. 1997, pp. 536-544.
  • Nielsen, D., et. al., “Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet—a preliminary report,” Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 24-29.
  • Oda, T, Ketal., 2005, “In vivo length-force relationships on muscle fiver and muscle tendon complex in the tibialis anterior muscle.” Int. J. Sport and Health Sciences 3, 245-252.
  • Ogihara, N. and Yamazaki, N., “Generation of human bipedal locomotion by a bio-mimetic neuro-musculo-skeletal model,” Bioi Cybern, vol. 84, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 1-11.
  • Palmer, M., “Sagittal plane characterization of normal human ankle function across a range of walking gait speeds,” Master's Thesis, MIT, Feb. 2002, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-71.
  • Paluska, D., and Herr, H., “Series Elasticity and Actuator Power Ouput,” Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 2006, Orlando, FL, pp. 1830-1833.
  • Paluska, D., and Herr, H., “The effect of series elasticity on actuator power and work output: implications for robotic and prosthetic joint design,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 54, Jun. 2006, pp. 667-673.
  • Pang, M., et. al., “The initiation of the swing phase in human infant stepping: importance of hip position and leg loading,” J Physiol, vol. 528, No. 2, Oct. 2000, pp. 389-404.
  • Pasch, K. A., and W. P. Seering, “On the drive systems for high performance machines,” AMSE J. Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design vol. 106, pp. 102-108, Mar. 1984.
  • Paul, C., et. al., “Development of a human neuro-musculo-skeletal model for investigation of spinal cord injury,” Bioi Cybern, vol. 93, No. 3, Aug. 2005, pp. 153-170.
  • Pearson, K., “Generating the walking gait: role of sensory feedback,” Prog Brain Res, vol. 143, 2004, pp. 123-129.
  • Pearson, K., et. al., “Assessing sensory function in locomotor systems using neuro-mechanical simulations,” Trends Neurosci, vol. 29, No. 11, Nov. 2006, pp. 625-631.
  • Perry, Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function, New Jersey: SLACK Inc.; 1992, Book Review, 1 page.
  • Perry, J. and S. Shanfield, “Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 30, No. 1, 1993 pp. 137-143.
  • Petrofshy et al., “Feedback Control System for Walking in Man,” Comput. Bioi. Med., vol. 14, No. 2, Mar. 1984, pp. 135-149.
  • Pfeffer et al., “Experiments with a Dual-Armed, Cooperative, Flexible-Drivetrain Robot System,” Proc. 1993 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics & Automation, vol. 3, pp. 601-608, May 5, 1993.
  • Popovic, et al., “Gait Identification and Recognition Sensor,” Proceedings of 6th Vienna International Workshop on Functional Electrostimulation, Sep. 1998, pp. 1-4.
  • Popovic, D., “Control of Movement for the Physically Disabled,” Springer-Verlag London Limited, May 2000, pp. 270-302.
  • Popovic D., et al., “Control Aspects of Active Above-Knee Prosthesis,” Int. Journal Man-Machine Studies, (1991) 35, pp. 751-767.
  • Popovic, M., “Angular Momentum Primitives for Human Walking: Biomechanics and Control,” Proc. of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sep. 2004, Sendai, Japan., pp. 1685-1691.
  • Popovic, M., et. al., “Angular Momentum Regulation during human walking: Biomechanics and Control,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA, pp. 2405-2411.
  • Popovic, M., et. al., “Zero spin angular momentum control: definition and applicability,” Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS/RSJ International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Nov. 2004, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1-16.
  • Popovic, M., et. al., “Ground Reference Points in Legged Locomotion: Definitions, Biological Trajectories and Control Implications,” International Journal of Robotics Research, Dec. 2006, pp. 79-104.
  • Popovic, M. and Herr, H., “Global Motion Control and Support Base Planning,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Aug. 2005, Alberta, Canada, pp. 1-8.
  • Popovic, M.B., W. Gu and H. Herr, “Conservation of Angular Momentum in Human Movement,” MIT AI Laboratory—Research Abstracts, Sep. 2002. pp. 231-232, 2002.
  • Pratt, G. and Williamson M., “Series elastic actuators,” Proceedings on IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Jan. 1995, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 399-406.
  • Pratt, G., “Legged Robots: What's New Since Raibert,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, Research Perspectives, Sep. 2000, pp. 15-19.
  • Pratt, G., “Low Impedance Walking Robots,” Integ. and Camp. Bioi., vol. 42, Feb. 2002, pp. 174-181.
  • Pratt, J., et. al., “The RoboKnee: An Exoskeleton for Enhancing Strength and Endurance During Walking”, IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA, pp. 2430-2435.
  • Prochazka, A. and Yakovenko, S., “The neuromechanical tuning hypothesis,” Prog Brain Res, vol. 165, Oct. 2007, pp. 255-265.
  • Prochazka, A., et. al., “Positive force feedback control of muscles,” J. of Neuro-phys., vol. 77, Jun. 1997, pp. 3226-3236.
  • Prochazka, A., et. al., “Sensory control of locomotion: reflexes versus higher-level control,” Adv Exp Med Bioi, vol. 508, 2002, pp. 357-367.
  • Raibert, M., “Legged Robots that Balance,” The MIT Press, Nov. 1986, Cambridge, MA, p. 89.
  • Rassier, D., et. al., “Length dependence of active force production in skeletal muscle,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 86, Issue 5, May 1999, pp. 1455-1457.
  • Riener, R., et. al., “Stair ascent and descent at different inclinations,” Gait Posture, vol. 15, Feb. 2002, pp. 32-44.
  • Reitman, et. al., Gait analysis in prosthetics: opinions, ideas and conclusions, Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2002, 26, 50-57.
  • Robinson, D., “Design and an analysis of series elasticity in closed-loop actuator force control,” Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Jun. 2000, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-123.
  • Robinson, D., “Series elastic actuator development for a biomimetic walking robot,” Proceedings of IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Sep. 1999, pp. 561-568.
  • Rosen, J., et al., “A myosignal-based powered exoskeleton system,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 31, No. 3, May 2001, pp. 210-222.
  • Ruina, A., et. al., “A collisional model of the energetic cost of support work qualitatively explains leg sequencing in walking and galloping, pseudo-elastic leg behavior in running and the walk-to-run transition,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 237, Issue 2, Jun. 2005, pp. 170-192.
  • Rybak, I., et. al., “Modelling spinal circuitry involved in locomotor pattern generation: insights from deletions during fictive locomotion,” J Physiol, vol. 577 (Pt 2), Dec. 2001, 617-639.
  • Sanderson, D., et. al., “Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic adaptations in unilateral below-knee amputees during walking,” Gait and Posture, vol. 6, No. 2, Oct. 1997, pp. 126-136.
  • Sanger, T., “Human arm movements described by a low-dimensional superposition of principal component,” Journal of NeuroScience, vol. 20, No. 3, Feb. 2000, pp. 1066-1072.
  • Saranli, U., “RHex: A simple and highly mobile hexapod robot,” Int. Jour. Rob. Res., vol. 20, No. 7, Jul. 2001, pp. 616-631.
  • Sarrigeorgidis K. and Kyriakopoulos K., “Motion control of the N.T.U.A. robotic snamek on a planar surface,” Proc. of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1998, pp. 2977-2982.
  • Schaal, S., “Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 3, Jun. 1999, pp. 233-242.
  • Schaal, S. And Atkeson, C., “Constructive incremental learning from only local information,” Neural Computation, vol. 10, No. 8, Nov. 1998, pp. 2047-2084.
  • Scott, S. and Winter, D., “Biomechanical model of the human foot: kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase of walking,” J. Biomech., vol. 26, No. 9, Sep. 1993, 1091-1104.
  • Sentis, L. and 0. Khatib, “Task-Oriented Control of Humanoid Robots Through Prioritization,” IEEE-RAS/RSJ International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Nov. 2004, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1-16.
  • Seyfarth, A., “Swing-leg retraction: a simple control model for stable running,” J. Exp. Bioi., vol. 206, Aug. 2003, pp. 2547-2555.
  • Seyfarth, A., et. al., “A movement criterion for running,” J. of Biomech., vol. 35, May 2002, pp. 649-655.
  • Seyfarth, A., et. al., “Stable operation of an elastic three-segmented leg,” Bioi.Cybern., vol. 84, 2001, pp. 365-382.
  • Simon F., et. al, “Convergent force fields organized in the frog's spinal cord,” Journal of NeuroScience, vol. 13, No. 2, Feb. 1993, pp. 467-491.
  • Sinkjaer, T., et. al., “Major role for sensory feedback in soleus EMG activity in the stance phase of walking in man,” J Physiol, vol. 523, No. 3, Mar. 2000, pp. 817-827.
  • Skinner, H. and Effeney D., “Gait analysis in amputees,” Am J Phys Med, vol. 64, Apr. 1985, pp. 82-89.
  • Smidt et al., “An Automated Accelerometry System for Gait Analysis,” J. Biomechanics, vol. 10, 1977, pp. 367-375.
  • Srinivasan, M., “Energetics of legged locomotion: Why is total metabolic cost proportional to the cost of stance work,” Proc. on ISB XXth Congress and the American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting, Jul. 2003, Cleveland, OH, pp. 829.
  • Stepien, J., et al., “Activity Levels Among Lower-Limb Amputees: Self-Report Versus Step Activity Monitor,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 88, No. 7, Jul. 2007, pp. 896-900.
  • Sugano et al., “Force Control of the Robot Finger Joint equipped with Mechanical Compliance Adjuster,” Proc. of the 1992 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intel I. Robots & Sys., Jul. 1992, pp. 2005-2013.
  • Sugihara, T., et. al., “Realtime Humanoid Motion Generation through ZMP Manipulation based on Inverted Pendulum Control,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 2002, Washington, DC, pp. 1404-1409.
  • Sup, F., “Design and Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 27, No. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 263-273.
  • Taga, G., “A model of the neuro-musculo-skeletal system for human locomotion,” Bioi. Cybern., vol. 73, No. 2, Jul. 1995, pp. 97-111.
  • Takayuki “Biped Locomotion using Multiple Link Virtual Inverted Pendulum Model,” Publication of Electronics Information and Systems Society, vol. 120, No. 2, Feb. 2000, 8 pages.
  • Thorough man, K. and R. Shadmehr, “Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives,” Nature, vol. 407, Oct. 2000, pp. 742-747.
  • Tomovic R. et al., “A Finite State Approach to the Synthesis of Bioengineering Control Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. 7, No. 2, Jun. 1966, pp. 65-69.
  • Tong, et al., “A Practical Gait Analysis System Using Gyroscopes,” Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 21, Mar. 1999, pp. 87-94.
  • Turker, K., “Electromyography: some methodological problems and issues,” Physical Therapy, vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1993, pp. 698-710.
  • van den Bogert, A., “Exotendons for assistance of human locomotion,” Biomedical Engineering Online, Oct. 2003, pp. 1-8.
  • van den Bogert, et al. “A Method for Inverse Dynamic Analysis Using Accelerometry,” Journal Biomechanics, vol. 29, No. 7, 1996, pp. 949-954.
  • Veltink P., et al., “The Feasibility of Posture and Movement Detection by Accelerometry,” D-7803-1377-1/93, IEEE, Oct. 1993, pp. 1230-1231.
  • Vukobratovic M. and Juricic, D., “Contributions to the synthesis of biped gait,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-16, No. 1, Jan. 1969, pp. 1-6.
  • Vukobratovic M. and Stepanenko J., “Mathematical models of general anthropomorphic systems,” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 17, Aug. 1973, pp. 191-242.
  • Walsh, C., “Biomimetic Design of an Under-Actuated Leg Exoskeleton for Load-Carrying Augmentation,” Masters Thesis, MIT, Feb. 2006, pp. 1-94.
  • Waters, RL., “Energy cost of walking amputees: the influence of level of amputation,” J Bone Joint Surg., vol. 58, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp. 42-46.
  • Wilkenfeld, A., “An Auto-Adaptive External Knee Prosthesis,” Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Sep. 2000, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-3.
  • Wilkenfeld, A. J., “Biologically inspired auto adaptive control of a knee prosthesis,” Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oct. 23, 2000.
  • Williamson, M., “Series Elastic Actuators,” Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Jan. 1995, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-74.
  • Willemsen A., et al., “Automatic Stance-Swing Phase Detection from Accelerometer Data for Peroneal Nerve Stimulation,” IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. 37, No. 12, Dec. 1990, pp. 1201-1208.
  • Willemsen A., et al., “Real-Time Gait Assessment Utilizing a New Way of Accelerometry,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 23, No. 8, 1990, pp. 859-863.
  • Williams, B., “Mode Estimation of Model-based Programs: Monitoring Systems with Complex Behavior,” Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Aug. 2001, Seattle, WA, pp. 1-7.
  • Winter, D. A, “Energy generation and absorption at the ankle and knee during fast, natural, and slow cadences,” Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, vol. 175, May 1983, pp. 147-154.
  • Winter, D, and Robertson D., “Joint torque and energy patterns in normal gait,” Bioi. Cybem., vol. 29, May 1978, pp. 137-142.
  • Winter, D. and Sienko S., “Biomechanics of below-knee amputee gait,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 21, No. 5, Aug. 1988, pp. 361-367.
  • Wisse, M., “Essentials of Dynamic Walking, Analysis and Design of two-legged robots,” Ph.D Thesis, Technical University of Delft, 2004, pp. 1-195.
  • Woodward et al., “Skeletal Accelerations measured during different Exercises,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 207, Jun. 1993, pp. 79-85.
  • Wu, The Study of Kinematic Transients in Locomotion Using the Integrated Kinematic Sensor, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 4, No. 3, Sep. 1996, p. 193-200.
  • Yakovenko, S., et. al., “Contribution of stretch reflexes to locomotor control: a modeling study,” Bioi Cybern, vol. 90, No. 2, Jan. 2004, pp. 146-155.
  • Yun X., “Dynamic state feedback control of constrained robot manipulators,” Proc. of the 27th conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 1988, pp. 622-626.
  • Zlatnik, D., et. al., “Finite-state control of a trans-femoral prosthesis,” IEEE Trans. on Control System Technology, vol. 10, No. 3, May 2002, pp. 408-420.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/359,216, Controlling Powered Human Augmentation Devices, filed Jan. 12, 2012.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/356,230, Terrain Adaptive Powered Joint Orthosis, filed Jan. 23, 2012.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/417,949, Biomimetic Joint Acuators, filed Mar. 12, 2012.
  • Blaya, J.A. et al., “Adaptive Control of a Variable-Impedance Ankle-Foot Orthosis to Assist Drop Foot Gait”, Artificial Intelligence Lab and Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA, 30 pages (2004).
  • Blaya, J.A. et al., “Active Ankle Foot Orthoses (AAFO)”, http://www.ai.mit.edu, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 3 pages (2001).
  • Drake, C., “Foot & Ankle Splints or Orthoses”, HemiHelp Information Sheet, London, United Kingdom, 3 pages, www.hemihelp.org.uk/leaflets/hbleaflets90.htm: Retrieved on Jun. 20, 2003.
  • Klute, et al., “Variable Stiffness Prosthesis for Transtibial Amputees”, Dept. of Veteran Affairs, Seattle, WA, USA, 2 pages (2003).
  • Light, et. al., “Skeletal Transients on Heel Strike in Normal Walking with Different Footwear”, J. Biomechanics, vol. 10, pp. 477-480 (1980).
Patent History
Patent number: 9839552
Type: Grant
Filed: Jan 10, 2012
Date of Patent: Dec 12, 2017
Patent Publication Number: 20120259429
Assignee: BIONX MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Bedford, MA)
Inventors: Zhixiu Han (Acton, MA), Christopher E. Barnhart (Carlisle, MA), Hugh M. Herr (Somerville, MA), Christopher Williams (Pittsburgh, PA), Jeff A. Weber (San Francisco, CA), Richard J. Casler, Jr. (Lowell, MA)
Primary Examiner: Quang D Thanh
Application Number: 13/347,443
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Pair Of Legs (601/35)
International Classification: A61F 2/30 (20060101); A61F 5/01 (20060101); A61H 3/00 (20060101);